Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-07 07:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > > * Why does this package use Autoreq: no ? > > This description forbids finding libraries requirements, which I think > > is quite unwilling. Even if you want to specify version-related > > requirements, "Autoreq: no" is unnecessary because you can simply add > > the requirements in addition to auto-finding requirements. > > Please believe me when I say that I didn't do this lightly. The thing that > forced me to disable Autoreg is that at least one of the libraries (libebook if > I rememver correctly) that are provided internally by e-d-s changed version from > one stable release to another. I observed that when I: > > 1) Installed evolution-brutus for testing > 2) Un-installed evolution-brutus > 3) did "yum update" > 4) Attempted to install evolution-brutus once more. This was now not possible > due to Autoreq finding that one of the internal e-d-s libraries had changed > version. > > The only way that I could fix this (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to > disable Autoreq. This sounds to me like a regular shared library update that would require this package to be rebuilt against the updated e-d-s? What's different here that makes this not the case? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review